Up until very recently I worked in forestry restoration; wilderness weedkilling, basically. Herbicides are essential for that job, and glyphosate is the main herbicide used.
Herbicide use is minimised; our typical work carry was a 100ml bottle of glyphosate. Snip weed with secateurs, dab a drop of glypho on the cut stem. However, there are situations where herbicide spraying is the least environmentally damaging option. Erosion control is a significant factor, as are resource limitations (i.e. too much hand weeding tears up the soil, and we don’t have infinite staff hours available).
With any of these issues, the key question is not “is there any evidence of negative impact?”, it’s “is there any evidence of negative impact that is worse than the alternatives?”.
Glyphosate is one of the most heavily researched chemicals of the modern era. Overall, its safety record in both human and environmental terms is astonishingly good, especially when compared to the alternatives.
Yes, it is likely that excessive use of glyphosate can create harmful effects, and that is worth paying attention to. But there is also a need for a holistic view which considers the environmental costs involved in restricting its use.
